Khalid Masood Khan
The recent decision by Pakistan’s major political parties—the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) and the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP)—to finally open dialogue on the highly divisive Cholistan canal project offers a glimmer of hope in what has become one of the most volatile inter-provincial disputes in recent years. Yet while this is a positive step, the path to a fair and lasting resolution remains steep and fraught with missteps that could—and should—have been avoided long ago.
At the heart of the issue lies the canal initiative under the broader Green Pakistan Initiative, a project pitched as a game-changer for the country’s agricultural landscape. It aims to irrigate the arid Cholistan desert in Punjab by constructing a network of canals drawing from the Indus River. In theory, this is a forward-looking effort to boost agricultural productivity, promote food security, and modernize rural economies.
However, in practice, the project has exposed long-standing fissures in Pakistan’s federal structure, pitting Punjab against Sindh in a fierce dispute over water rights, provincial autonomy, and center-province relations. The fact that the PPP—a key coalition partner in the federal government—has gone as far as to threaten pulling out of the alliance over this issue underscores the intensity of the discord. Protests and shutter-down strikes across Sindh reveal a growing sense of alienation and mistrust towards the center’s decision-making, particularly when it comes to resources that many in Sindh feel are being diverted unfairly.
This conflict, unfortunately, is not new. It follows a familiar pattern in Pakistan’s history where the central government pushes ahead with projects of national significance without first securing consensus from all stakeholders, especially smaller provinces. It is a pattern that often ends up eroding federal cohesion and deepening political fault lines.
Given this context, the recent outreach by PML-N leader Rana Sanaullah to PPP’s Sharjeel Inam Memon, following a call by former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif for dialogue, is a welcome development. But let’s be honest—it should not have taken this long. The failure to initiate timely discussions has allowed tensions to boil over, causing avoidable political friction and stoking public resentment.
The PPP, to its credit, has acknowledged the gesture but remains firm in its opposition to the project, demanding its complete rollback. While this position may appear uncompromising, it reflects the broader sentiment in Sindh, where people are deeply concerned about the environmental and economic consequences of what they perceive as unilateral water diversion. There’s real fear that the Cholistan project could come at the cost of Sindh’s already-depleted share of water from the Indus River—a lifeline for the province’s agriculture and ecosystem.
Here lies the central challenge: How does a federation like Pakistan balance national development with provincial equity? The Constitution provides a very clear answer—the Council of Common Interests (CCI). This institution was specifically created to manage and resolve disputes related to inter-provincial and center-province matters. It is not merely a consultative forum; it is a constitutional necessity designed to uphold the spirit of federalism.
Yet the CCI remains woefully underutilized. Meetings are mandated to be held every 90 days, but successive governments, including the current one, have failed to comply. No CCI session has been convened since the present coalition assumed power. This not only violates the Constitution but also sidelines a legitimate and binding mechanism for building consensus on contentious issues like water sharing.
Why is the CCI being ignored? Perhaps it’s politically more convenient for ruling parties to manage disputes through back-channel negotiations or partisan compromises. But this short-term approach undermines democratic institutions and only delays the inevitable backlash when provincial grievances erupt into full-blown crises.
The current PML-N-PPP dialogue should therefore not be seen as a substitute for institutional processes, but rather as a starting point. It must be followed by formal CCI deliberations to ensure that whatever resolution is reached has both constitutional legitimacy and political durability.
It’s also important to recognize that national development projects do not have to be zero-sum games. Advancing Punjab’s agricultural growth through the Cholistan initiative doesn’t mean Sindh must lose out. But that balance can only be achieved through transparent planning, equitable resource distribution, and genuine consultation.
Moreover, water policy in Pakistan is already fraught with complexity. The Indus Waters Treaty, climate change, inefficient irrigation practices, and poor water management infrastructure all compound the scarcity issue. Any major canal project must therefore be backed by comprehensive environmental impact assessments, stakeholder consultations, and inter-provincial agreement—not just federal ambition.
Both the PML-N and PPP must rise above short-term political maneuvering. The stakes are too high. The Cholistan canal dispute is no longer just a local issue; it is a national test of Pakistan’s ability to manage diversity within a federated structure. If handled poorly, it risks setting a dangerous precedent for future conflicts over resources—be it water, energy, or development funding.
The road ahead requires political maturity, legal adherence, and above all, fairness. The center must not be seen as favoring one province over another. And provincial parties must engage constructively rather than resorting to threats or ultimatums. Only a dialogue grounded in mutual respect and constitutional process can lead to a resolution that protects both national interests and provincial rights.
In conclusion, while the renewed dialogue between the PML-N and PPP on the Cholistan canal project is a much-needed development, it must be part of a broader institutional and democratic approach to governance. The federal government must revitalize the Council of Common Interests, not just as a constitutional obligation, but as a cornerstone of national unity. A solution that serves the federation can—and must—also serve its federating units. Anything less would be a betrayal of the very principles upon which Pakistan’s federal structure stands.
